What he’s advocating for is an accountable state vs unaccountable state.

This is similar to why he advocates for unions, even though they are power structures, that power is somewhat accountable to union members verses being fully concentrated in the hands of business owners.

So, what he’s saying, is that realistically you need to have some sort of government to oppose private(unaccountable) power that would inevitably attempt to become a totalitarian government to exploit its citizens.

Chomsky is essentially trying to optimize for maximum individual liberty, while recognizing there needs to be a way to prevent private power from taking away individual liberty.

I think Chomsky would agree to supporting state socialism/social democracy.

I didn’t feel like he glossed over the relationship of the individual and the state. He directly, but unemotionally, addresses the injustices and illegitimacy of the US government in respect to natives and slaves.

I think his primary point in this very short interview was to shed light on the absurdity of gun overship keeping the state in check. It wasn’t meant to be an all encompassing thesis.

His definition of anarchy is not the absence of hierarchy all together, but the practice of challenging and tearing down illegitimate power structures. That the power of violence should be democratically controlled verses privately controlled. I tend to agree with him, but I do acknowledge the risk of corruption. I’m not dogmatic, I just don’t know what would achieve anarchists goals of maximizing individual freedom better.

I wouldn’t lump him in with HRC or Pelosi. He obviously doesn’t support capitalism of the US/globalist variety and I think he supports suppression of fascist speech. Not exactly your vanilla liberal.

So, from my perspective he’s on the left side of anarchy and I wouldn’t vote him out of the community if there were such a thing.